From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27432 invoked by alias); 17 May 2002 18:53:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 27421 invoked from network); 17 May 2002 18:53:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dr-evil.shagadelic.org) (208.176.2.162) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 May 2002 18:53:36 -0000 Received: by dr-evil.shagadelic.org (Postfix, from userid 7518) id B26959869; Fri, 17 May 2002 11:53:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 11:53:00 -0000 From: Jason R Thorpe To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFA] Generic OS ABI handling Message-ID: <20020517115335.D14437@dr-evil.shagadelic.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jason R Thorpe , Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20020516195255.G4613@dr-evil.shagadelic.org> <200205171235.NAA22247@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200205171235.NAA22247@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com>; from rearnsha@arm.com on Fri, May 17, 2002 at 01:35:30PM +0100 Organization: Wasabi Systems, Inc. X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00746.txt.bz2 On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 01:35:30PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > Sorry Jason, I don't think this is correct. I don't think that it will > correctly handle the fact that existing GNU binutils tools for ARM set the > ELFOSABI field to ELFOSABI_ARM for starters, or the fact that ARM's D'oh, yes, you're right. > Maybe a sniffer registration should be able to set a priority level (maybe > just SPECIFIC/GENERIC) in a return field, then a SPECIFIC selection will > always override a GENERIC selection. A generic sniffer would always be > registered as returning a GENERIC match, and specific system sniffers > could override that. Hm. Since there's already bfd_arch_unknown for wildcarded sniffers, a sniffer with bfd_arch_<...> could be considered "specific". I coded this up, updated the docs, and will post another patch with the change in a separate message. > Is not strictly correct (it's a derivative of a comment that I wrote > before I fully understood the meaning of this field). Okay, fixed. Thanks! -- -- Jason R. Thorpe